Citizens Complain to Department of Justice About JCC Redistricting

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Four citizens are challenging James City County’s redistricting plan because they argue it dilutes minority voting strength by reducing the minority population in some districts. They recently asked the Department of Justice to stop the county from implementing the plan, but the county attorney doesn’t expect that will happen.

The redistricting process was led by a 10-person advisory committee made up of two appointees chosen by each Board member, meaning the group was predominantly appointed by Republicans. The group members did not create a map together, but rather, they voted on individual maps that were submitted to the group and they completed their work in early April. The board approved the recommended map on April 26 by a 3-2 vote.

Four citizens sent a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) on May 10 requesting the Department reject the plan. The group includes citizen committee member David Jarman; Craig Metcalfe, who worked on crafting two maps that increased minority strength; Edith Heard, who has been working on behalf of Grove residents during the process; and Mary Minor. County Attorney Leo Rogers did not receive a copy of the letter until it was provided to him by WYDaily.

The four citizens argue that the redistricting map aimed to protect Republican incumbents, which reduced the minority population and therefore reduced their voting strength. They also assert that Rogers didn’t give the committee or the Board proper information on legal standards for redistricting, and that the process kept minorities from participating. Rogers disagrees on all points, and says the Board specifically excluded protecting incumbency during the process and that the population percentages the group cites are misleading. He also says that drawing districts based on race is not legally permissible.

Jarman says he believes the intent of the redistricting map was to keep Republican incumbents in their districts, “which resulted in unanticipated consequences,” namely “the retrogression of minority voting strength in Berkeley and Roberts [districts].”

Rogers points out that, though the memo he submitted to the Board at the beginning of the process included considering incumbency when redrawing district lines, “the county grew so much in population [based on new census data] that the county couldn’t preserve incumbents, so the Board deleted this criteria.”

According to the letter sent to the DOJ, the Roberts District has the highest reduction in minority population, from 31 percent today to less than 22 percent in the new plan. The alternate map, option 2 that was rejected by the citizen committee because it didn’t meet compactness criteria, would have increased the minority population to over 35 percent.

This option would have given minorities “a greater voice in allocation of resources and greater representation on the County’s various committees and commissions,” according to the letter. Also, “a significant minority influence population forces elected officials to pay grater heed to the needs of the minority population.”

The group points out that in the 2007 Board of Supervisors race, minority candidate George Drummond only lost the election by about 100 votes. The high number of non-white votes for Drummond indicates that “had the district had a higher percentage of minority voters, he would have won.”

Rogers says these numbers are misleading because the current districts reflect population data from the 2000 census, while the new districts reflect 2010 census data. “In 2010, the minority population decreased generally,” Rogers says. “The reduction of minority [population] had to do with population growth, not the drawing of district lines.”

Another argument put forth by the group is that Rogers didn’t advise the committee or the Board on the legal standard regarding redistricting. “The problem is, case law suggests that [district] shape is less important than if you’ve diminished voting capacity of minorities,” says Jarman.

In fact, Jarman voted to disqualify the option 2 map (which had five districts, and one that had an odd shape but increased minority population) because Rogers “suggested compactness was more important than dilution. I thought that Leo Rogers knew what he was talking about, so I voted against [the option]. He gave us bad legal advice.”

The complaint says the option 2 map was rejected because the minority influence district created wasn’t compact. “At no time did county counsel or the chair of the [committee] inform the [committee] of the standards set forth in the DOJ guidance issued in February 2011.”

The guidance says “in some cases, a certain level of compactness of district boundaries may need to give way to some degree to avoid retrogression.” Rogers advised the opposite, according to the group, both to the committee and the Board.

To that argument, Rogers responds, “compactness is the number one state and federal [redistricting] criteria.” He also says in order for minority dilution to happen, “you need minority strength to begin with… no area in the county had a majority of minority [population] to dilute.”

Rogers also points to a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bartlett v. Strickland. The Court ruled that the law didn’t authorize special protection of a minority during redistricting if the minority population makes up less than 50 percent of the district.

Finally, the complaint argues that minorities were largely unable to participate in the process. Only one African American was on the committee, the letter says, and that person was appointed by a Democrat. “Being an appointee of the minority party gave the single African American no possibility of meaningful input into the process,” the letter states.

There were actually three minority members, according to Rogers. Heather Cordasco and Joshua Mayes are both Hispanic, he says, and “all three minority members voted to approve the [selected] map.”

Minorities also had limited participation because the county didn’t clearly tell the public that anyone could make maps with the help of staff, and also because software that would allow a citizen to do so privately was very expensive, according to the letter. This made it “extremely difficult for any member of the public” to make a map.

The committee was tasked to consider all maps submitted by anyone, according to Rogers, and that information was in the resolution adopted by the Board at the start of the process. “All maps were to be taken into consideration, and the entire process was done in the open,” says Rogers.

Jarman says the group hopes the DOJ rejects the county plan, but Rogers says he’s confident the plan will get the green light. “I anticipate a positive response from the DOJ between July 1 and July 15, before the 90-day period for preclearance [is over].”

The DOJ has contacted Rogers and Board member John McGlennon about the issue, according to Rogers. Minor also called the DOJ to discuss the matter, according to Jarman.